It opens with the most realistic sea engagement I've ever seen in a movie, helped immeasurably by the prudent use of CGIs. The performances are all pretty good -- and what a surprise to see such a straightforward adventure tale from Peter Weir, master and commander of the subliminally ominous.
For my taste, which may, admittedly, be a little warped, the movie doesn't give us quite enough of the exhilaration of being at sea. I mean that zesty feeling of being windswept on a weather deck in the middle of an empty sea with bright sunshine all around. The one thing all these sailors would have in 1805 is sun tans but they look pale and sweaty. The visuals are a bit dark and gloomy, which is okay during storms when you're trying to get around the Horn but not when you're anchored in the Galapagos.
Still, this is above average. Russel Crowe is neither Errol Flynn nor Captain Bligh. He's more like Horatio Hornblower but with more nearly human quirks than just clearing his throat. As the captain, Crowe plays a lively tune by Boccherini on the violin to the doctor's cello. Nice work too. And on happy occasions he gets drunk with his fellow officers and makes lousy jokes. There is one astonishing shot of Crowe and a companion perched on the tiptoptoloftical peak of the mainmast, atop the topgallants or something, a million miles in the air. How did he get there? Was Crowe digitalized in? If not, they're not paying him enough.
We have the British fighting against what are traditionally called "overwhelming odds," a French super frigate, the Acheron, which they finally take after a bloody battle.
What a more interesting and less popular flick it would have been, had the foe of the original novel been retained, the Americans during the War of 1812. No one would have gone to see it. The French in 1805 are an admirable substitute. The enemy is not "France", it's "Napoleon." The huge American audience feels less in common with France than with the Brits. Also during Napoleon's attempt to conquer the world, there was an opponent worth fighting, not to mention Jerry Lewis and bidets. But the War of 1812 -- well. Something about the Brits impressing American seamen, wasn't it? As a casus belli, the concept is a little difficult to grasp. And it proved to be a thoroughly bad idea by President Madison.
"Master and Commander" gives us heroes we can root for. We see everything from the point of view of the British sailors aboard the Surprise, just as we would in an Errol Flynn movie, although Crowe is a far more complex character.
But suppose the Acheron HAD retained its American identity? What would our response, as Americans, have been? Would we still have been cheering for the Brits as eagerly as if it had been a soccer game? Would we have been tickled to see the Acheron blown apart?
Such an added layer of complexity might have prompted us to think about the nature of war. (Gosh -- it's not REALLY a football game.) It would have challenged our loyalties. It might even have caused us to think a little about the nature of human nature. Why does battle seem so tragic only when OUR side suffers? Or -- worst of all -- what is it, buried deep in my limbic system, that makes me want to shout YEAH when Crowe outwits the Frogs? Whatever the answers, they're not likely to turn out to have the same effect as bright sunshine on a windswept deck. As I say, nobody would go to see it.
There are three main conflicts, all handled deftly. The faceless enemy against the British, from "Horatio Hornblower" and "The Sea Hawk." The sullen crew versus an officer, familiar to us from, oh, "Moby Dick" and "Damn the Defiant" and "Mutiny on the Bounty"; and a more interesting conflict of interests between the intellectual doctor who wants to explore the Galapagos Islands thirty years before Darwin, and Russel Crowe's captain, who is determined to pursue and destroy the Acheron. We can see a similar disjunction between the egghead and the practical man of common sense in "The Thing From Another World" and "Ball of Fire." It's the difference between the theoretical physicist and the engineer. In the movies, the engineer often shows up in uniform and almost always wins the debate.
The movie is worth catching. Lots of sea lore and tradition, almost an exercise in history. And with its innovative score and outstanding CGIs, it's a sensory feast too.
For my taste, which may, admittedly, be a little warped, the movie doesn't give us quite enough of the exhilaration of being at sea. I mean that zesty feeling of being windswept on a weather deck in the middle of an empty sea with bright sunshine all around. The one thing all these sailors would have in 1805 is sun tans but they look pale and sweaty. The visuals are a bit dark and gloomy, which is okay during storms when you're trying to get around the Horn but not when you're anchored in the Galapagos.
Still, this is above average. Russel Crowe is neither Errol Flynn nor Captain Bligh. He's more like Horatio Hornblower but with more nearly human quirks than just clearing his throat. As the captain, Crowe plays a lively tune by Boccherini on the violin to the doctor's cello. Nice work too. And on happy occasions he gets drunk with his fellow officers and makes lousy jokes. There is one astonishing shot of Crowe and a companion perched on the tiptoptoloftical peak of the mainmast, atop the topgallants or something, a million miles in the air. How did he get there? Was Crowe digitalized in? If not, they're not paying him enough.
We have the British fighting against what are traditionally called "overwhelming odds," a French super frigate, the Acheron, which they finally take after a bloody battle.
What a more interesting and less popular flick it would have been, had the foe of the original novel been retained, the Americans during the War of 1812. No one would have gone to see it. The French in 1805 are an admirable substitute. The enemy is not "France", it's "Napoleon." The huge American audience feels less in common with France than with the Brits. Also during Napoleon's attempt to conquer the world, there was an opponent worth fighting, not to mention Jerry Lewis and bidets. But the War of 1812 -- well. Something about the Brits impressing American seamen, wasn't it? As a casus belli, the concept is a little difficult to grasp. And it proved to be a thoroughly bad idea by President Madison.
"Master and Commander" gives us heroes we can root for. We see everything from the point of view of the British sailors aboard the Surprise, just as we would in an Errol Flynn movie, although Crowe is a far more complex character.
But suppose the Acheron HAD retained its American identity? What would our response, as Americans, have been? Would we still have been cheering for the Brits as eagerly as if it had been a soccer game? Would we have been tickled to see the Acheron blown apart?
Such an added layer of complexity might have prompted us to think about the nature of war. (Gosh -- it's not REALLY a football game.) It would have challenged our loyalties. It might even have caused us to think a little about the nature of human nature. Why does battle seem so tragic only when OUR side suffers? Or -- worst of all -- what is it, buried deep in my limbic system, that makes me want to shout YEAH when Crowe outwits the Frogs? Whatever the answers, they're not likely to turn out to have the same effect as bright sunshine on a windswept deck. As I say, nobody would go to see it.
There are three main conflicts, all handled deftly. The faceless enemy against the British, from "Horatio Hornblower" and "The Sea Hawk." The sullen crew versus an officer, familiar to us from, oh, "Moby Dick" and "Damn the Defiant" and "Mutiny on the Bounty"; and a more interesting conflict of interests between the intellectual doctor who wants to explore the Galapagos Islands thirty years before Darwin, and Russel Crowe's captain, who is determined to pursue and destroy the Acheron. We can see a similar disjunction between the egghead and the practical man of common sense in "The Thing From Another World" and "Ball of Fire." It's the difference between the theoretical physicist and the engineer. In the movies, the engineer often shows up in uniform and almost always wins the debate.
The movie is worth catching. Lots of sea lore and tradition, almost an exercise in history. And with its innovative score and outstanding CGIs, it's a sensory feast too.